Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics.

OBJECTIVES: Group-2 reviewed the scientific evidence in the field of «Technology¼. Focused research questions were: (1) additive versus subtractive manufacturing of implant restorations; (2) survival, complications, and esthetics comparing prefabricated versus customized abutments; and (3) survival of posterior implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature was systematically screened, and 67 publications could be critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines, resulting in three systematic reviews. Consensus statements were presented to the plenary where after modification, those were accepted. RESULTS: Additively fabricated implant restorations of zirconia and polymers were investigated for marginal/internal adaptation and mechanical properties without clear results in favor of one technology or material. Titanium base abutments for screw-retained implant single crowns compared to customized abutments did not show significant differences concerning 1-year survival. PFM, veneered and monolithic zirconia implant-supported multi-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses demonstrated similar high 3-year survival rates, whereas veneered restorations exhibited the highest annual ceramic fracture and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: For interim tooth-colored implant single crowns both additive and subtractive manufacturing are viable techniques. The clinical performance of additively produced restorations remains to be investigated. Implant single crowns on titanium base abutments show similar clinical performance compared to other type of abutments; however, long-term clinical data from RCTs are needed. The abutment selection should be considered already during the planning phase. Digital planning facilitates 3D visualization of the prosthetic design including abutment selection. In the posterior area, monolithic zirconia is recommended as the material of choice for multi-unit implant restorations to reduce technical complications.

The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not one of two emergence profile designs (concave or convex) is superior to the other in terms of remaining cement following cementation of reconstructions on individualized abutments and careful cement removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A central incisor with a single implant-supported reconstruction was selected as a model. Six types of abutments (n = 10) with two different emergence profile designs (concave (CC) and convex (CV)) and three crown-abutment margin depths (epimucosal, 1.5 mm submucosal, 3 mm submucosal) were fabricated through a CAD/CAM procedure. Lithium disilicate reinforced ceramic crowns were cemented with chemically polymerized resin cement. A blinded investigator attempted to remove all cement excess. Thereafter, the entire reconstruction was unscrewed and analyzed for the overall amount and the depth of cement excess. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to investigate differences between groups. When more than two groups were compared between each other, a Bonferroni correction of the P value was performed. RESULTS: Concave abutments presented significantly more cement remnants than CV abutments when the entire abutment area of the epimucosal margin groups was evaluated (CC0 mm: mean 2.31 mm2 (SD 0.99) vs. CV0 mm: mean 1.57 mm2 (SD 0.55); P = 0.043). A statistically significant increase in remnants was detected when the crown-abutment margin was located more submucosally for every abutment studied (0 mm vs. 1.5 mm: P < 0.000, 0 mm vs 3 mm: P < 0.000, 1.5 mm vs. 3 mm: P < 0.000). The buccal quadrant demonstrated the least, whereas the oral and interdental quadrants showed the greatest amount of cement excess. CONCLUSIONS: Concave emergence profile abutments and deep crown-abutment margin positions increased the risk of cement excess. Oral and interdental areas are more prone to cement remnants than other surface areas.

Esthetic and Clinical Performance of Implant-Supported All-Ceramic Crowns Made with Prefabricated or CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutments: A Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial.

Patients' esthetic expectations are increasing, and the options of the prosthetic pathways are currently evolving. The objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial was to assess and compare the esthetic outcome and clinical performance of anterior maxillary all-ceramic implant crowns (ICs) based either on prefabricated zirconia abutments veneered with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM zirconia abutments veneered with hand buildup technique. The null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Forty implants were inserted in sites 14 to 24 (FDI) in 40 patients in 2 centers, the Universities of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland. After final impression, 20 patients were randomized into group A, restored with a 1-piece screw-retained single crown made of a prefabricated zirconia abutment with pressed ceramic as the veneering material using the cut-back technique, or group B using an individualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a hand buildup technique. At baseline, 6 mo, and 1 y clinical, esthetic and radiographic parameters were assessed. Group A exhibited 1 dropout patient and 1 failure, resulting in a survival rate of 94.7% after 1 y, in comparison to 100% for group B. No other complications occurred. Clinical parameters presented stable and healthy peri-implant soft tissues. Overall, no or only minimal crestal bone changes were observed with a mean DIB (distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact) of -0.15 mm (group A) and 0.12 mm (group B) at 1 y. There were no significant differences at baseline, 6 mo, and 1 y for DIB values between the 2 groups. Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) values at all 3 examinations indicated stability over time for both groups and pleasing esthetic outcomes. Both implant-supported prosthetic pathways represent a valuable treatment option for the restoration of single ICs in the anterior maxilla ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02905838).

10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess the long-term clinical survival rate and the technical and biological complication rates of zirconia-based posterior FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients in need of one or more posterior FDPs received 57 three- to five-unit zirconia-based FDPs. The frameworks were fabricated by means of a prototype computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) system (direct ceramic machining, DCM), first processing zirconia in the white stage. The frameworks were veneered with a prototype veneering ceramic.The FDPs were adhesively placed. At baseline, 6 months, and 1,2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years of function, the FDPs were examined for technical and/or biological complications. Furthermore, the periodontal health of the abutment teeth (test) and untreated control teeth was analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed applying descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival and multiple mixed effects regression tests. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with 26 FDPs were examined at a mean observation time of 10.7 +/- 1.3 years. A total of 16 FDPs were lost to follow-up. Fifteen FDPs had to be replaced due to technical/biological complications; hence, the 10-year survival rate of the FDPs was 67%. Three framework fractures occurred, resulting in a 10-year survival rate for the zirconia frameworks of 91.5%. Chipping/fracture of the veneering ceramic was detected in 16 FDPs over 10 years (complication rate 32%). A significant correlation of the span of the FDPs and the incidence of chipping was observed: 4- and 5-unit FDPs had a 4.9 times higher probability for chipping than 3-unit FDPs. Marginal discrepancy/degradation was found in 90.7% of the FDPs over 10 years. At 11 of the FDPs (complication rate 27%), secondary caries occurred. No difference of the periodontal health was found around test and control teeth. CONCLUSION: The zirconia frameworks exhibited very good long-term stability. However, the zirconia-based FDPs frequently exhibited problems such as marginal deficiency or chipping of the veneering ceramic. Both problems may be associated with the prototype status of the system.

The effect of dentin desensitizer on shear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin luting cements after aging.

This study tested the impact of Gluma Desensitizer on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two conventional (RelyX ARC, Panavia 21) and two self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem, G-Cem) resin luting cements after water storage and thermocycling. Human third molars (N=880) were embedded in acrylic resin. The buccal dentin was exposed. Teeth were randomly divided into four main groups, and the following cements were adhered: 1) RelyX ARC, 2) Panavia 21, 3) RelyX Unicem, and 4) G-Cem. In half of the teeth in each group, dentin was treated with Gluma Desensitizer. In the conventional cement groups, the corresponding etchant and adhesive systems were applied. SBS of the cements was tested after 1 hour (initial); at 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25 days of water storage; and at 1, 4, 9, 16, and 25 days of thermocycling. SBS data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); this was followed by the post hoc Scheffé test and a t-test. Overall, the highest mean SBS (MPa) was obtained by RelyX ARC (ranging from 14.6 ± 3.9 to 17.6 ± 5.2) and the lowest by Panavia 21 in combination with Gluma Desensitizer (ranging from 0.0 to 2.9 ± 1.0). All tested groups with and without desensitizer showed no significant decrease after aging conditions compared with baseline values (p>0.05). Only the Panavia 21/Gluma Desensitizer combination showed a significant decrease after 4 days of thermocyling compared with initial values and 1 day thermocycling. Self-adhesive cements with Gluma Desensitizer showed increased SBS after aging conditions (ranging from 7.4 ± 1.4 to 15.2 ± 3) compared with groups without desensitizer (ranging from 2.6 ± 1.2 to 8.8 ± 2.9). No cohesive failures in dentin were observed in any of the test groups. Although self-adhesive cements with and without desensitizer presented mainly adhesive failures after water storage (95.8%) and thermocyling (100%), conventional cement (RelyX ARC) showed mainly mixed failures (90.8% and 89.2%, after water storage and thermocyling, respectively). Application of the Gluma Desensitizer to dentin before cementation had a positive effect on the SBS of self-adhesive cements.